According to CT magazine, Origin is not spyware.

[Althea]

Fact is I only added the BF3 Beta, BF3 Retail and SWTOR Pre-Order Key manually, Bad Company 2 added itself after a Scan, in its entirety with Key/Product Code and everything.

Do you not think that it's because it's linked to your EA account rather than anything sinister?

[Dexter]

But is it? Surely the welcome change would be a studio that puts out a more polished release in the first place? I'm not denying that The Witcher games were improved by the patches, but this is two games in a row they've done it. It's a bit worrying, in a way, but it's also a marketing tool which I don't exactly approve of. "Come buy our game! We fixed bugs, and we've decided to re-label it and sell it in a new version!".

The "release" was perfectly fine polished from the start, I didn't have any crashes and I could play through it in its entirety, as could a lot of other people, I've seen literally broken games release and Witcher 2 was certainly not one of them. Are you actually holding it against them that they are incorporating some of the things that people disliked about the game and offering additional support and content to the game for free after you already paid for it?

　

That aside, I'm also not entirely opposed to the "pay-before-it's-ready" approach to making games, for instance I've bought Natural Selection 2 a long time ago and it's sitting there on Steam waiting to get ready and I'm able to play the Beta if I want, Minecraft and a few other games have had a similar model. I'd rather a developer push a game out not ready than not at all, there are forces at play beyond "they were lazy, so it's buggy", before something like STALKER 2 (or whatever game, it was just a recent example) get cancelled entirely out of financial reasons I'd rather support them with some money so they can keep working on it. There are a lot of mediocre games out there that were nearly bug-free, which won't get better over times because they're bad games and there are a lot of great games that released rather unfinished and even required a lot of community work for one reason or another (for instance Vampire: Bloodlines, KOTOR II, most Bethesda games or Gothic come to mind) I'd much rather prefer out there and available even if they're still buggy instead of cancelled or given up on...

No, I didn't hear about that. Kind of surprises me, I thought with all the "no DRM, protect the customers!" talk that CDProjekt were better than this.

Yep, they're really evil for removing the publisher-demanded DRM because customers were having problems cause of it... http://kotaku.com/5819762/namco-sues-over-european-distribution-drm-removal-from-witcher-2

Wait, what...?

Do you not think that it's because it's linked to your EA account rather than anything sinister?

I would have been more inclined to believe that if it was there from the start and didn't just "add" itself after some Update and after I had added the Battlefield 3 Beta manually.

[Althea]

The "release" was perfectly fine polished from the start, I didn't have any crashes and I could play through it in its entirety, as could a lot of other people, I've seen literally broken games release and Witcher 2 was certainly not one of them. Are you actually holding it against them that they are incorporating some of the things that people disliked about the game and offering additional support and content to the game for free after you already paid for it?

No. Patching is fine. Making a big song and dance over what is deemed routine (i.e. patching) is not. I'm surprised they don't tell us when they go to the bathroom, to be honest. The game didn't have a perfectly fine start as you implied, though. There were issues with DLC (so much so that they scrapped the original system within days/weeks and shipped the DLC with a patch), no Polish language files with English copies (which annoyed me as the Polish VOs were a big download), with the saves taking up huge amounts of space, with the DRM - which you mentioned earlier - and so on.

My point is that CDProjekt RED have now released two games with which they've felt it necessary to release updated versions, The Witcher 2 getting its within a very short amount of time after release. That, to me, suggests little confidence in its products or some sort of inconsistency with testing. They should have made sure the DRM didn't affect the game like it did, they should have gone "Shit, guys, what about a tutorial for new players?" - things like that. The fact they didn't, to me, is a little puzzling. It also makes me begin to think that buying on release day is a stupid idea because six months later, they'll just bring out a new version. Why should I bother buying on release, only to wait for that version to exist? There's no point, is there? I might as well just wait. That's not a good approach. With The Witcher 1 you can understand it as it was their favourite game and it did incredibly well, so it could be considered a goodwill gesture but also a way to go "Look, we did great, and we've now addressed some problems so please play this new version and see how we've improved it based on your feedback.", but after that it doesn't work. Why did they fall into the same trap again? Why did they feel the need to update it like they have? SotS II had a botched release, but you don't see SotS II 2.0 being mentioned, they just got their heads down and put out substantial patch after substantial patch.

That aside, I'm also not entirely opposed to the "pay-before-it's-ready" approach to making games, for instance I've bought Natural Selection 2 a long time ago and it's sitting there on Steam waiting to get ready and I'm able to play the Beta if I want, Minecraft and a few other games have had a similar model. I'd rather a developer push a game out not ready than not at all, there are forces at play beyond "they were lazy, so it's buggy", before something like STALKER 2 (or whatever game, it was just a recent example) get cancelled entirely out of financial reasons I'd rather support them with some money so they can keep working on it. There are a lot of mediocre games out there that were nearly bug-free, which won't get better over times because they're bad games and there are a lot of great games that released rather unfinished and even required a lot of community work for one reason or another (for instance Vampire: Bloodlines, KOTOR II, most Bethesda games or Gothic come to mind) I'd much rather prefer out there and available even if they're still buggy instead of cancelled or given up on...

And? With Minecraft et al you knew what you were getting into. With a retail release, you expect a finished and final product. That's not what you get with CDProjekt RED games - at least not so far.

I would have been more inclined to believe that if it was there from the start and didn't just "add" itself after some Update and after I had added the Battlefield 3 Beta manually.

Who knows how Origin works? But still, it's not a sign of anything malevolent.

[Batolemaeus]

I had kinda expected someone to already have posted the gist of the article. Huh.
I'm currently sitting in bed without my stack of c't in reach, but I shall hunt down the relevant issue tomorrow and post a tl;dr

Can't find the issue. :(

[Dexter]

And? With Minecraft et al you knew what you were getting into. With a retail release, you expect a finished and final product. That's not what you get with CDProjekt RED games - at least not so far.

Fact is, the game was perfectly playable from launch for me and largely bug-free, I don't know from where you get the idea that it was "unfinished" from. I still haven't even updated to 2.0 and haven't played it in a while and still have rather fond memories of it, I might pick it up again after the Xbox version is out and there have been even more updates (didn't they say something about an Expansion also?)

Another fact is, software like many other things is never "done", you could always have done something more or different and there's always features and content that were planned but will ultimately be scrapped, it's a reality of software development.

At some point when your product works and large does what it is supposed to you'll just pick a release date and put it out there for other people to enjoy and I'd rather have a developer that listens to feedback and works to fix issues people had with its product (not that I personally had many) than a company ignoring such issues, which a lot of games have because according to some there is something like a "final product".

Also, are you annoyed at CDProjekt updating their game or are you "upset" about every site picking up on it and running a news story, which is it?

[soldant]

Yep, they're really evil for removing the publisher-demanded DRM because customers were having problems cause of it... http://kotaku.com/5819762/namco-sues-over-european-distribution-drm-removal-from-witcher-2

Wait, what...?

Did you look at the other article I linked, the one which says they're carpet-bombing Germany with legal threats to a bunch of IP addresses with people who may have been pirating The Witcher 2? That's close to RIAA tactics for combating file sharing: pick out a bunch of IP addresses from the tracker, demand large sum of money or threaten to sue into oblivion.

The legal issue I think we were highlighting was less that CDProjekt was less about the DRM issue and more about distribution and a potential culture of litigation, but I digress. Point is CDProjekt aren't saints and although they don't particularly like DRM, they're still happy to start litigation like any record label.

[deano2099]

But is it? Surely the welcome change would be a studio that puts out a more polished release in the first place? I'm not denying that The Witcher games were improved by the patches, but this is two games in a row they've done it. It's a bit worrying, in a way, but it's also a marketing tool which I don't exactly approve of. "Come buy our game! We fixed bugs, and we've decided to re-label it and sell it in a new version!".

I think you're conflating two things here. The Witcher games were no buggier than most big PC releases, and they were patched to a similar schedule.

The stuff that went into the 2.0 versions were stuff that went above and beyond: improved graphics, vastly fixed script, re-recorded dialogue, language options and some extra campaigns for Witcher 1. A new tutorial, arena mode and difficulty level for Witcher 2.

For the Witcher 2 specifically, the extra content could basically have been sold as DLC (Bioware certainly would have) in which case it would have been covered by websites as new DLC. While I take your point about patches not really being news-worthy, I'd hate to see sites ignore additions like this just because they're not being charged for.

[Taidan]

But that's kind of the point, Origin, Steam etc. aren't there for your benefit.

But they do bring benefits to us, via the social aspects, cloud support, auto-patching, etc. At least, having one of them does. Having more than one doesn't as far as I'm concerned. But like I said, your mileage may vary.

Steam constantly updates itself automatically for me and then asks to be restarted. Does that mean I should classify Steam as spyware? Spyware is not automatically updating, it implies intrusive monitoring and sending of collected data to its point of origin, presumably for a malicious purpose. If the report above is true, Origin doesn't do this, and there's nothing to suggest that EA are interested in you anyway.

Did you just read my reply to "How many updates would it take to add spyware to Origin" as "Anything that auto-updates is spyware"? Go back, re-read, try again, bearing in mind the following facts: 1) You can add code to existing programs to perform a wide variety of roles. 2) Us PC users call this process "Updating".

Let me ask you a question though. If I put Origin under watch for a day or so, looking to see what traffic it was handling and what it was doing, and reported back that Origin wasn't do anything, would you believe me that, at least in its current state, Origin is harmless? Or would you insist that it isn't? Likewise if I did the same to Steam and noticed it dealing with suspicious traffic or IO activities, would you label it spyware?

No, I wouldn't believe you, for some very simple simple reasons, as stated in my original post, just as I wouldn't believe anybody who definitively stated around these parts that it is spyware.

1) Just like everyone else that has weighed in on the issue, you don't have any way of producing the rock-solid credentials that mark you as an expert in this kind of thing. Even then, there's no guarantee of impartiality from anonymous forum posters.

2) One day would not be a valid study. Spyware doesn't have to be uploading data 24/7 to be spyware, or even once a day. It can do it on install, it can do it weekly, it can phone home once a month.

Again, I'll restate what I wrote in my first post, since apparently nobody bothers reading anything, and any mild perceived criticism of Origin gets jumped on by the same old characters, no matter what was actually written:

Whether or not you want Origin on your system comes down to one simple thing: The benefits that Origin can bring you, versus the many potential downfalls of dealing with a company that famously (Add you own links here) puts your needs and rights as a customer right at the bottom of the list of what they want to achieve with their software.

Note: I can already tell that you either didn't read it, or that you did and you just didn't get it, and that you're itching to reply and quote, so I'll put it clearly: Yes, I didn't state in either this post or the first one that Origin is spyware. I'm just clearly saying that EA are a bunch of untrustworthy c**ts, and any choice as to use their software to gather customer information comes down to a simple risk vs. reward calculation of how much that information is worth versus how much money they'll lose if they upset their customers. Let's go look through some of those other EA complaint threads that exist out there and try and work this out, yes? ;)

lolwut? It's pretty simple. Step 1 - deploy packet sniffer. Step 2 - run origin. Then look at what it's doing for yourself. It's not exactly rocket science.

A fair bit of it is encrypted traffic. I don't know exactly how you can decrypt that kind of stuff, concidering that it's all asymmetric-key cryptography. I guess it would be possible to throw up a man-in-the-middle that serves Origin a fraudulent public key which your MitM can decrypt, but I doubt that it's willing to accept that fraudulent key (running strings on the .exe seems to indicate that it might check for that kind of thing).

Either way, most of what I know is that it makes a connection with the webstore (HTTPS), and that it connects to chat.dm.origin.com (XMPP) using your account's numerical ID to log you in to the chat service. I think they're doing some extra stuff somewhere, because connecting using a standard XMPP client (I've tried it with Pidgin) disconnects you after a while, even though you're able to use the chat functionality as expected. There must be some kind of keep-alive signal that the Origin client sends to the chat service, but I haven't figured out what that all is since it's all encrypted.

Interesting. I think I'll just wait for the inevitable Ars Technica article on the subject, though. ;)

[Althea]

But they do bring benefits to us, via the social aspects, cloud support, auto-patching, etc. At least, having one of them does. Having more than one doesn't as far as I'm concerned. But like I said, your mileage may vary.

And how often does the auto-patching cause issues? It also removes any control you have over the version of the game you wish to run. Is the latest patch broken? Oops, you're stuck with it. Cloud support I'll grant you, but for many people it's not much use as they don't move around all that much or will back up anyway. Social aspects? Eh, again, not everyone is bothered about them. Valve and EA have certainly tried to make those products less of a bitter pill to swallow by giving superfluous features, but at the end of the day Steam, Origin and so on are not there for the benefit of the user. They are there to control and possibly "monitor" your use of the products tied to them.

[Taidan]

And how often does the auto-patching cause issues? It also removes any control you have over the version of the game you wish to run. Is the latest patch broken? Oops, you're stuck with it. Cloud support I'll grant you, but for many people it's not much use as they don't move around all that much or will back up anyway. Social aspects? Eh, again, not everyone is bothered about them. Valve and EA have certainly tried to make those products less of a bitter pill to swallow by giving superfluous features, but at the end of the day Steam, Origin and so on are not there for the benefit of the user. They are there to control and possibly "monitor" your use of the products tied to them.

But they do bring benefits to us, via the social aspects, cloud support, auto-patching, etc. At least, having one of them does. Having more than one doesn't as far as I'm concerned. But like I said, your mileage may vary.

.

. .

. . .

;)

[soldant]

Did you just read my reply to "How many updates would it take to add spyware to Origin" as "Anything that auto-updates is spyware"? Go back, re-read, try again, bearing in mind the following facts: 1) You can add code to existing programs to perform a wide variety of roles. 2) Us PC users call this process "Updating".

I did read it. The user asked how many mandatory autoupdates it would take to become spyware. It sounded like you were implying that mandatory autoupdates are a key feature of spyware and an indicator of suspicious activity. I can see where I was wrong and I apologise but I don't see the relevance of updating at all... largely because I see no evidence that Origin is doing anything inherently dangerous or wrong. I see zero credible evidence that Origin is doing anything more than any other digital content management system, or more specifically, anything more serious than what Steam does.

Present some. Until then the accusations all stem from "But it's EA!" which isn't a strong argument.

[Taidan]

I did read it. The user asked how many mandatory autoupdates it would take to become spyware. It sounded like you were implying that mandatory autoupdates are a key feature of spyware and an indicator of suspicious activity. I can see where I was wrong and I apologise but I don't see the relevance of updating at all... largely because I see no evidence that Origin is doing anything inherently dangerous or wrong. I see zero credible evidence that Origin is doing anything more than any other digital content management system, or more specifically, anything more serious than what Steam does.

Present some. Until then the accusations all stem from "But it's EA!" which isn't a strong argument.

Got you covered there already:

Note: I can already tell that you either didn't read it, or that you did and you just didn't get it, and that you're itching to reply and quote, so I'll put it clearly: Yes, I didn't state in either this post or the first one that Origin is spyware.

But since there's a genuine challenge on, let's sum up why "But it's EA!" is, in fact a strong argument for not using Origin, and especially relevant if we're going to turn it into a "Steam vs Origin" p***ing contest

1) "But it's EA!"

I win. Goodnight. *snicker*

[soldant]

But since there's a genuine challenge on, let's sum up why "But it's EA!" is, in fact a strong argument for not using Origin, and especially relevant if we're going to turn it into a "Steam vs Origin" p***ing contest

Once again, prove that Origin is spyware. Innocent until proven guilty!

[deano2099]

I think we all know that the reason the benefits of Steam outweigh the downside comes down to one simple factor: sales with games that are cheaper than a pint. And once you're on and using it for a few ultra-sales the barrier to using it for other games is a lot lower.

If Battlefield 3 or The Old Republic was selling for a fiver on Origin a lot more people would be using it...

[Althea]

I think we all know that the reason the benefits of Steam outweigh the downside comes down to one simple factor: sales with games that are cheaper than a pint. And once you're on and using it for a few ultra-sales the barrier to using it for other games is a lot lower.

The sales aren't actually that good, really, unless it's certain titles that are on sale frequently (Killing Floor, for example) or the odd pack here and there. In the UK, for recent titles, the sale tends to not be all that impressive as the retail editions have been cheaper for longer and/or are at a lower price. Yeah, some of the sale titles are really good deals, but largely? It's not that great, I'd say.

[Vexing Vision]

No, I didn't hear about that. Kind of surprises me, I thought with all the "no DRM, protect the customers!" talk that CDProjekt were better than this.

They totally have my support for this. Just because Witcher 2 doesn't come with DRM, there's no reason to pirate it.

More draconic punishments for thieves + less draconic DRM = my ideal world.

This is of course only my personal opinion, and I know that most disagree with it. :)

[Wolfenswan]

More draconic punishments for thieves + less draconic DRM = my ideal world.

what exactly do people who pirate games (movies/music etc.) steal?

[Althea]

They totally have my support for this. Just because Witcher 2 doesn't come with DRM, there's no reason to pirate it.

More draconic punishments for thieves + less draconic DRM = my ideal world.

This is of course only my personal opinion, and I know that most disagree with it. :)

No, there is no reason to pirate it, DRM or no. But at the same time, it's not CDProjekt's responsibility to go after pirates. Aside from the fact that often innocent people get caught in these traps, they're taking the law into their own hands and really it's just... not cool. Instead of looking like "crusaders of justice", they look like a bunch of over-reacting, militant jerks.

Suppose it's a matter of perspective.

[FuriKuri!]

I dunno. Practically every game I've bought on steam directly has been on sale and had a large discount. I think if you avoid AAA stuff where 10% off amounts to very little, the deals are pretty good. Occaisonally you'll get the odd AAA for extremely cheap (I nabbed New Vegas in the last sale for like £4), but I wouldn't rely on it for that. I've always found it worth checking back each day during a sale to see what's available.

I've certainly bought a lot of games this way which I wouldn't have otherwise.

[Vexing Vision]

what exactly do people who pirate games (movies/music etc.) steal?

Like UnravThreads said above, it's a matter of perspective. :) The arguments "is this theft", "does this hurt anyone", "am I being a dickwad who feels it's my gods-given right to play every game ever made for free because I wouldn't but it anyway" have been made over and over again.

I think it is the publisher's/developer's right to go after pirates. There once was a hilarious anime dating game where the torrent-version was secretly leaked by the devs themselves - the only problem is that it contained a code which took a screenshot of the desktop and put it up on a wall of shame, where people had to buy the full-version to be removed.

That was definitely crossing the border, legally and ethically, but oh so funny.